Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 27, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Legal Expenses Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from our other activities. As a result, any current or future claims, allegations, or challenges by or against third parties, whether eventually decided in our favor or settled, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and/or related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect our ability to continue to sell our products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for our products or license or otherwise monetize our intellectual property rights in the future. We retain the services of law firms that specialize in patent licensing and enforcement and patent law in connection with our licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms are often retained on a contingent fee basis whereby such law firms are paid on a scaled percentage of any negotiated fee, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained. Litigation and Challenges to Netlist Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) We are, from time to time, a party to litigation that arises in the normal course of our business operations. We own numerous patents and continue to seek to grow and strengthen our patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of our innovations and includes various claim scopes. We plan to pursue avenues to monetize our intellectual property portfolio, in which we would generate revenue by selling or licensing our technology, and we intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. We dedicate substantial resources to protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings we file against third parties and defense of our patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the USPTO and PTAB. We expect these activities to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that we will be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolio. Samsung Litigation On May 28, 2020, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SECL”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”) (Netlist Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 8:20-cv-00993) for SECL’s breach of the Joint Development and License Agreement (“JDLA”) between the parties. Netlist amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that it properly terminated the JDLA in light of SECL’s material breaches thereof. On October 14, 2021, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Netlist on SECL’s breach and Netlist’s termination of the JDLA. The case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages on December 1, 2021, and the jury reached a verdict for SECL on December 3, 2021. The Court entered final judgment on February 15, 2022, and both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the case to the District Court, which reopened the case on November 13, 2023. The case proceeded to trial on May 14, 2024, and the jury reached a verdict for Netlist on May 17, 2024. On December 26, 2024, the Court granted SECL’s motion for a new trial, holding that one juror’s voir dire responses support a finding of implied juror bias which deprived both parties of their right to a fair trial. A new trial was held from March 18 to March 21, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the jury returned a verdict for Netlist. On April 7, 2025, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Netlist on its claims that SECL breached the JDLA and that Netlist properly terminated the JDLA. On May 5, 2025, SECL filed a motion for a new trial. On June 27, 2025, the Court issued an order directing the parties to file a status report proposing how the Court should elicit testimony from the jurors at issue in SECL’s motion for a new trial. The parties filed the status report on July 9, 2025 and appeared before the Court on July 11, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Court issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing regarding SECL’s motion for a new trial, and the evidentiary hearing was held on July 30, 2025. On August 4, 2025, the Court issued an order denying SECL’s motion for a new trial. On August 29, 2025, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 2, 2025, the appeal was docketed and assigned Case No. 25-5531. The appeal is pending. On October 15, 2021, SECL and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“DDE”) (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453), seeking a declaration that SECL and SSI do not infringe the following Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912; 9,858,218; 10,217,523; and 10,474,595 (respectively, the “’912, ’218, ’523, and ’595 Patents”). SECL and SSI filed amended complaints to add other Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506; 10,949,339; 11,016,918; and 11,232,054 (respectively, the “’506, ’339, ’918, and ’054 Patents”). Netlist filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 1, 2022, the Court granted this motion in part, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the ’912, ’506, ’339, ’918, and ’054 Patents. On September 12, 2022, Netlist filed a crossclaim against Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. (collectively, “Google”) and counterclaims against SECL and SSI, seeking damages from the infringement by Google, SECL, and SSI, a finding of willful infringement by Google, SECL, and SSI and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On November 15, 2022, Google filed a motion to dismiss this case as to Google or, alternatively, for a severance, stay, and dismissal of willfulness and indirect infringement allegations. This motion was heard on May 22, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the Court stayed this case pending the resolution of the above CDCA case and ordered the parties to notify the Court within seven days of any action by the CDCA pertaining to the parties’ rights under the JDLA that may merit lifting the stay. On March 31, 2025, the parties notified the Court of the jury verdict in the above CDCA case. On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed a complaint against SECL, SSI, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), Case No. 2:21-cv-00463, for infringement of the ’506, ’339, and ’918 Patents. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of the ’054 Patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 and 9,318,160 (respectively, the “’060 and ’160 Patents”). On April 14, 2023, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’339, ’918, ’054, ’060, and ’160 Patents. On April 21, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed all five patents and awarded $303 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the five patents (see below). On August 11, 2023, the Court entered final judgment. On August 9, 2024, Samsung filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), Case No. 2024-2203. On January 6, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to stay this appeal pending the resolution of the above CDCA case. On February 18, 2025, the CAFC denied this motion without prejudice. On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending. On August 1, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), for infringement of the ’912 Patent. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,093,417; 9,858,215; and 10,268,608 (respectively, the “’417, ’215, and ’608 Patents”). On November 12, 2024, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’912, ’417, and ’608 Patents. On November 22, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed all three patents and awarded $118 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the three patents (see below). On December 2, 2024, the Court entered final judgment. On December 4, 2024, Netlist filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a subsequent permanent injunction. On December 30, 2024, Samsung filed a combined post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and a motion to amend the judgment and to stay this case pending the resolution of the above CDCA case. On January 31, 2025, the Court denied Netlist’s motion for a preliminary injunction and a subsequent permanent injunction. On October 9, 2023, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:23-cv-01122), seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 11,386,024 (the “’024 Patent”). On November 6, 2023, Netlist moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On March 4, 2025, the Court denied this motion. On June 13, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’024 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00001). On July 8, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling and consolidation order consolidating this action with the action below (Case No. 1:24-cv-00614) and setting a Markman hearing on June 26, 2026, a hearing on case dispositive and Daubert motions on June 16, 2027, a pretrial conference on July 26, 2027, and a five-day jury trial starting on August 2, 2027. On August 1, 2025, the Court granted Netlist’s motion to stay the consolidated action pending the final written decisions in the two IPRs. On May 22, 2024, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:24-cv-00614), seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 11,880,319 (the “’319 Patent”). On July 15, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Court denied as moot in view of Samsung’s First Amended Complaint filed on August 5, 2024. On August 21, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On March 4, 2025, the Court denied this motion. On June 13, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the IPR of the ’319 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00002). On July 8, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling and consolidation order consolidating this action with the action above (Case No. 1:23-cv-01122). On May 19, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00557) for infringement of U.S. Patent 12,308,087 (the “’087 Patent”). On June 27, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Micron asserting the ’087 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00558). On July 8, 2025, Netlist filed (a) a First Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”) and (b) a First Amended Complaint against Micron and Avnet, asserting infringement of the ’087 Patent and U.S. Patent 10,025,731 (the “’731 Patent”), seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On July 22, 2025, Micron moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for improper venue. On July 25, 2025, the Court issued a Docket Control Order setting a claim construction hearing on September 25, 2026 and a trial date of March 15, 2027. On September 11, 2025, SEA and SSI filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On September 11, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims in the First Amended Complaint. On September 15, 2025, Avnet filed motions to dismiss both First Amended Complaints. On October 9, 2025, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet asserting infringement of the ’087 and ’731 Patents. On October 10, 2025, Micron moved to stay pending resolution of the venue dispute. On November 24, 2025, SEA and SSI filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On November 24, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims in the Second Amended Complaint. On November 24, 2025, Avnet filed a motion to partially dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2026, Samsung filed a motion to stay this case pending the ITC investigation. On January 28, 2026, Avnet filed a motion to sever and stay. On February 27, 2026, Netlist filed a Third Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet. On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Micron’s motion to dismiss and transferred the member case against Micron to the DDE. On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to stay the case as to Samsung and Avnet pending ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472. On May 20, 2025, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00626) seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s ’087 Patent. On June 11, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to dismiss or transfer this declaratory judgement action to the EDTX based upon its first-filed EDTX action asserting the ’087 Patent. On July 29, 2025, Samsung filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe the ’087 and ’731 Patents as well as U.S. Patent 12,373,366 (the “’366 Patent”). On July 28, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung and Avnet in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00748) for infringement of the ’366 Patent, seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Micron and Avnet asserting the ’366 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749). On November 19, 2025, SSI and SEA moved to dismiss for improper venue. On November 19, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims. On December 10, 2025, the Court issued a Docket Control Order setting a claim construction hearing on February 18, 2027 and a trial date of August 16, 2027. On January 4, 2026, Netlist filed a First Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet, and a First Amended Complaint against Micron and Avnet. On January 26, 2026, Micron filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2026, Samsung filed a motion to stay this case pending the ITC investigation. On January 28, 2026, Avnet filed a motion to sever and stay. On March 2, 2026, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet. On September 30, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) for patent infringement against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro Computer, Inc. (“Super Micro”) (collectively, “Respondents”). The complaint alleges infringement of six Netlist patents (the ’366, ’731, ’608, ’523, ’035, and ’087 Patents) by one or more of Samsung’s Double Data Rate 5^th Gen. (“DDR5”) Dual Inline Memory Module (“DIMM”) or High Bandwidth Memory (“HBM”) products, Google and Super Micro products containing the same, and components thereof. Netlist seeks a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order from the ITC to stop Respondents’ infringing acts with respect to these infringing products. On December 29, 2025, the ITC instituted an investigation into the Respondents’ alleged infringing acts (Investigation No. 337-TA-1472). On November 11, 2025, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-01371) seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s ’035 Patent. On December 31, 2025, Samsung filed its counterclaims in the ITC investigation, asserting counterclaims for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, and unfair competition by Netlist, and sought a declaratory judgment of unenforceability of an exclusion order. Pursuant to ITC procedure, the counterclaims were immediately removed to the DDE and docketed as Case No. 1:25-cv-01589. Micron Litigation On April 28, 2021, Netlist filed complaints against Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00430 and 6:21-cv-00431), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,833; 9,824,035; 10,268,608; and 10,489,314 (respectively, the “’833, ’035, ’608, and ’314 Patents”), seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. On February 14, 2022, the Court granted Micron’s motion to transfer venue for convenience to another court within WDTX, and the transferred cases were assigned new case nos. 1:22-cv-00134 and 1:22-cv-00136. On May 11, 2022, the Court granted motions to stay the two cases pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the ’833, ’035, ’608, and ’314 Patents. On June 10, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00203), for infringement of the ’506, ’339, ’918, ’054, ’060 and ’160 Patents, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On May 19, 2023, Micron filed a motion to stay this case pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the six asserted patents. On October 22, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a claim construction order, which the Court adopted on January 17, 2024. On January 3, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a recommendation to deny Micron’s motion to stay this case, which the Court adopted on January 31, 2024. On February 10, 2024, the Court vacated its prior order, staying this case pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the six asserted patents. On August 1, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00294), for infringement of the ’912 Patent. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of the ’417 and ’215 Patents. On May 20, 2024, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’912 and ’417 Patents. On May 23, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed both patents and awarded $445 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the two patents (see below). On July 11, 2024, the Court entered final judgment. On August 7, 2024, Micron filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. On June 11, 2025, the Court denied Micron’s motions for judgment as a matter of law on willfulness, on non-infringement, and on damages as well as Micron’s motion for a new trial. On July 9, 2025, Micron filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), Case No. 2025-1936. The appeal is pending. On December 11, 2023, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County (“Idaho State Court”) (Case No. CV01-23-19920), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’833 Patent in WDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and Micron moved to remand the case to the Idaho State Court. On August 16, 2024, the District of Idaho remanded this case to the Idaho State Court. On August 20, 2024, Netlist appealed the remand to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2281, and moved the District of Idaho to stay the remand. On September 17, 2024, Micron moved to dismiss or transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the CAFC denied on December 19, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the Idaho State Court case for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Idaho State Court denied on December 5, 2024. On June 12, 2025, the CAFC denied Netlist’s motion to stay the remand pending the appeal; the appeal remains pending. On December 8, 2025, the Idaho State Court set a trial date for December 7, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the Court appointed a discovery master to address the pending discovery disputes between the parties. On December 23, 2023, Netlist filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:23-cv-00628), seeking a declaration that Netlist had not asserted patent infringement in bad faith against Micron in the prior EDTX patent infringement cases. On January 19, 2024, Micron moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 7, 2024, Netlist filed a First Amended Complaint. On July 19, 2024, the Court denied Micron’s motion to dismiss as moot. On December 5, 2024, Netlist moved for a protective order to preclude Micron from seeking discovery into Netlist’s subjective intent in filing the prior EDTX patent infringement cases. On December 13, 2024, Micron moved to stay this case on abstention grounds. On March 27, 2025, the Court stayed this case pending the conclusion of the CAFC appeals of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) decisions on the Netlist patents asserted against Micron in the prior EDTX patent infringement cases. On January 16, 2024, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in Idaho State Court (Case No. CV01-24-01032), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’918 and ’054 Patents in the EDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and Micron moved to remand the case to the Idaho State Court. On August 13, 2024, the District of Idaho remanded this case to the Idaho State Court. On August 20, 2024, Netlist appealed the remand to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2282, and moved the District of Idaho to stay the remand. On September 10, 2024, the appeal was consolidated with the above-related appeal (Case No. 2024-2281). On September 17, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the Idaho State Court case for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Idaho State Court denied on December 20, 2024. On June 27, 2025, the Idaho State Court granted Netlist’s motion to stay this case until the CAFC issues its opinion in the appeal of the IPR decisions involving the two patents. On May 19, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00558) for infringement of ’087 Patent. On June 17, 2025, Micron moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. On June 27, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Samsung asserting the ’087 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00557). On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Micron’s motion to dismiss (in the lead case) and transferred this case Micron to the DDE, which was assigned DDE case no. 1:26-cv-00246 on March 9, 2026. On May 20, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00629) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’087 Patent. On June 11, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to dismiss or transfer this declaratory judgement action to the EDTX based upon its first-filed EDTX action asserting the ’087 Patent. On June 2, 2025, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in Idaho State Court (Case No. CV01-25-09858), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’060, ’160, ’506, ’339, ’912, and ’417 Patents in the EDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). On June 24, 2025, Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. On July 1, 2025, Netlist moved to dismiss or to transfer the case to the EDTX. On July 17, 2025, Micron filed a motion to remand the case to the Idaho State Court. On July 10, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00863) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’731 Patent. On July 28, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron and Avnet in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749) for infringement of the ’366 Patent, seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Samsung and Avnet asserting the ’366 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00748). On July 29, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00942) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’366 Patent. Google Litigation On December 4, 2009, Netlist filed a complaint against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case no. 3:09-cv-05718), for infringement of the ’912 Patent, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a preliminary and permanent injunction. On October 17, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated order to stay this case until the resolution of the patent infringement suit against Samsung filed on August 1, 2022 in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), including any appeal thereof. Challenges to Netlist Patents at the USPTO and the PTAB On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’218 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00062). On May 8, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’523 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00063). On May 3, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On July 3, 2023, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2023-2133). The CAFC heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision. On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’595 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00064). On May 9, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On February 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00615). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent, IPR2023-00203. On April 17, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent unpatentable. On September 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2304). The appeal is pending. On March 2, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00639). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00204). On October 18, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On April 11, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1707). On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending. On March 22, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’506 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00711). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’506 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00205). On October 17, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On February 21, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-1521. The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 5, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision. On March 30, 2022, Micron filed two Petitions for IPR of the ’314 Patent (Case Nos. IPR2022-00744 and IPR2022-00745). On October 30, 2023, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On December 29, 2023, Micron filed notices of appeal to the CAFC (Case Nos. 2024-1312 and 2024-1313). The appeals were consolidated on January 16, 2024. The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 1, 2025. On February 20, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions. On May 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00996). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00406. On December 6, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1859). On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending. On May 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00999). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00405). On December 5, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1863). On June 3, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. 2024-1859). On August 26, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01427). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00883. On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2240. On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending. On August 26, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01428). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00882). On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2241). On September 6, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. 2024-2240). On January 10, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00455. On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. IPR 2023-01142). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1286). The appeal is pending. On January 10, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00454). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-01141). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1296). On January 15, 2025, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. 2025-1286). On April 27, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’608 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00847). On January 10, 2024, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’608 Patent (Case No. IPR2024-00370). On July 23, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR sought by Micron. On December 10, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the IPR brought by SECL finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On January 13, 2025, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1378). The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 5, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision. On October 18, 2024, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’024 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00001). On February 20, 2025, Netlist filed its preliminary response to the Petition. On May 15, 2025, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On May 29, 2025, Netlist requested director review of the institution decision, which was denied on July 17, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Netlist filed a statutory disclaimer and a request for adverse judgment. On September 8, 2025, the PTAB granted Netlist’s request for adverse judgment. On October 24, 2024, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’319 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00002). On February 21, 2025, Netlist filed its preliminary response to the Petition. On May 15, 2025, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On May 29, 2025, Netlist requested director review of the institution decision, which was denied on July 17, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Netlist filed a statutory disclaimer and a request for adverse judgment. On September 8, 2025, the PTAB granted Netlist’s request for adverse judgment. On August 14, 2025, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’608 Patent (Application No. 90/015,449). On October 17, 2025, Netlist filed a petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On November 5, 2025, the unidentified party opposed. On November 7, 2025, the request for reexamination was granted by the examiner. On January 6, 2026, Netlist filed a renewed petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On January 15, 2026, the unidentified party opposed. On August 25, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ’087 Patent (Case No. PGR2025-00071) and a Petition for IPR of the ’087 Patent (IPR2025-01402). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR but granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the PGR institution decision. On August 29, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’731 Patent (IPR2025-01431). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the institution decision. On October 27, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’035 Patent (IPR2026-00017). On February 24, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. On November 7, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for PGR of the ’366 Patent (Case No. PGR2026-00001) and a Petition for IPR of the ’366 Patent (IPR2026-00018). German Proceedings On March 31, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Micron in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP 2,454,735 (“EP735”) and EP 3,404,660 (“EP660”). On September 1, 2022, Micron initiated nullity proceedings on the two patents in the German Federal Patent Court. On March 27, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court rescheduled the infringement hearing until April 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On June 3, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Samsung in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On September 25, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 26, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Google Germany GmbH, Redtec Computing GmbH, and Google LLC in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. In the nullity proceeding on EP735, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP735 on April 18, 2024. Netlist filed an appeal on May 13, 2024. An oral hearing at the Federal Court of Justice is set for May 21, 2026. In the nullity proceeding on EP660, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP660 on February 18, 2025. Netlist filed an appeal on March 12, 2025. Other Contingent Obligations In the ordinary course of our business, we have made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These may include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to our customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of our products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on our negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; (vi) severance and other related obligations; and (vii) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 27, 2025

Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Legal Expenses

Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from our other activities. As a result, any current or future claims, allegations, or challenges by or against third parties, whether eventually decided in our favor or settled, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and/or related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect our ability to continue to sell our

products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for our products or license or otherwise monetize our intellectual property rights in the future.

We retain the services of law firms that specialize in patent licensing and enforcement and patent law in connection with our licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms are often retained on a contingent fee basis whereby such law firms are paid on a scaled percentage of any negotiated fee, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained.

Litigation and Challenges to Netlist Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”)

We are, from time to time, a party to litigation that arises in the normal course of our business operations. We own numerous patents and continue to seek to grow and strengthen our patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of our innovations and includes various claim scopes. We plan to pursue avenues to monetize our intellectual property portfolio, in which we would generate revenue by selling or licensing our technology, and we intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. We dedicate substantial resources to protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings we file against third parties and defense of our patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the USPTO and PTAB. We expect these activities to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that we will be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolio.

Samsung Litigation

On May 28, 2020, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SECL”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”) (Netlist Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 8:20-cv-00993) for SECL’s breach of the Joint Development and License Agreement (“JDLA”) between the parties. Netlist amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that it properly terminated the JDLA in light of SECL’s material breaches thereof. On October 14, 2021, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Netlist on SECL’s breach and Netlist’s termination of the JDLA. The case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages on December 1, 2021, and the jury reached a verdict for SECL on December 3, 2021. The Court entered final judgment on February 15, 2022, and both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the case to the District Court, which reopened the case on November 13, 2023. The case proceeded to trial on May 14, 2024, and the jury reached a verdict for Netlist on May 17, 2024. On December 26, 2024, the Court granted SECL’s motion for a new trial, holding that one juror’s voir dire responses support a finding of implied juror bias which deprived both parties of their right to a fair trial. A new trial was held from March 18 to March 21, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the jury returned a verdict for Netlist. On April 7, 2025, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Netlist on its claims that SECL breached the JDLA and that Netlist properly terminated the JDLA. On May 5, 2025, SECL filed a motion for a new trial. On June 27, 2025, the Court issued an order directing the parties to file a status report proposing how the Court should elicit testimony from the jurors at issue in SECL’s motion for a new trial. The parties filed the status report on July 9, 2025 and appeared before the Court on July 11, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Court issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing regarding SECL’s motion for a new trial, and the evidentiary hearing was held on July 30, 2025. On August 4, 2025, the Court issued an order denying SECL’s motion for a new trial. On August 29, 2025, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 2, 2025, the appeal was docketed and assigned Case No. 25-5531. The appeal is pending.

On October 15, 2021, SECL and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“DDE”) (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453), seeking a declaration that SECL and SSI do not infringe the following Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912; 9,858,218; 10,217,523; and 10,474,595 (respectively, the “’912, ’218, ’523, and ’595 Patents”). SECL and SSI filed amended complaints to add other Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506; 10,949,339; 11,016,918; and 11,232,054 (respectively, the “’506, ’339,

’918, and ’054 Patents”). Netlist filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 1, 2022, the Court granted this motion in part, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the ’912, ’506, ’339, ’918, and ’054 Patents. On September 12, 2022, Netlist filed a crossclaim against Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. (collectively, “Google”) and counterclaims against SECL and SSI, seeking damages from the infringement by Google, SECL, and SSI, a finding of willful infringement by Google, SECL, and SSI and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On November 15, 2022, Google filed a motion to dismiss this case as to Google or, alternatively, for a severance, stay, and dismissal of willfulness and indirect infringement allegations. This motion was heard on May 22, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the Court stayed this case pending the resolution of the above CDCA case and ordered the parties to notify the Court within seven days of any action by the CDCA pertaining to the parties’ rights under the JDLA that may merit lifting the stay. On March 31, 2025, the parties notified the Court of the jury verdict in the above CDCA case.

On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed a complaint against SECL, SSI, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), Case No. 2:21-cv-00463, for infringement of the ’506, ’339, and ’918 Patents. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of the ’054 Patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 and 9,318,160 (respectively, the “’060 and ’160 Patents”). On April 14, 2023, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’339, ’918, ’054, ’060, and ’160 Patents. On April 21, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed all five patents and awarded $303 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the five patents (see below). On August 11, 2023, the Court entered final judgment. On August 9, 2024, Samsung filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), Case No. 2024-2203. On January 6, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to stay this appeal pending the resolution of the above CDCA case. On February 18, 2025, the CAFC denied this motion without prejudice. On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending.

On August 1, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), for infringement of the ’912 Patent. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,093,417; 9,858,215; and 10,268,608 (respectively, the “’417, ’215, and ’608 Patents”). On November 12, 2024, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’912, ’417, and ’608 Patents. On November 22, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed all three patents and awarded $118 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the three patents (see below). On December 2, 2024, the Court entered final judgment. On December 4, 2024, Netlist filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a subsequent permanent injunction. On December 30, 2024, Samsung filed a combined post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and a motion to amend the judgment and to stay this case pending the resolution of the above CDCA case. On January 31, 2025, the Court denied Netlist’s motion for a preliminary injunction and a subsequent permanent injunction.

On October 9, 2023, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:23-cv-01122), seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 11,386,024 (the “’024 Patent”). On November 6, 2023, Netlist moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On March 4, 2025, the Court denied this motion. On June 13, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’024 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00001). On July 8, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling and consolidation order consolidating this action with the action below (Case No. 1:24-cv-00614) and setting a Markman hearing on June 26, 2026, a hearing on case dispositive and Daubert motions on June 16, 2027, a pretrial conference on July 26, 2027, and a five-day jury trial starting on August 2, 2027. On August 1, 2025, the Court granted Netlist’s motion to stay the consolidated action pending the final written decisions in the two IPRs.

On May 22, 2024, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:24-cv-00614), seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 11,880,319 (the “’319 Patent”). On July 15, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Court denied as moot in view of Samsung’s First Amended Complaint filed on August 5, 2024. On August 21, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On March 4, 2025, the Court denied this motion. On June 13, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the IPR of the ’319 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00002). On July 8, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling and consolidation order consolidating this action with the action above (Case No. 1:23-cv-01122).

On May 19, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00557) for infringement of U.S. Patent 12,308,087 (the “’087 Patent”). On June 27, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Micron asserting the ’087 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00558). On July 8, 2025, Netlist filed (a) a First Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”) and (b) a First Amended Complaint against Micron and Avnet, asserting infringement of the ’087 Patent and U.S. Patent 10,025,731 (the “’731 Patent”), seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On July 22, 2025, Micron moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for improper venue. On July 25, 2025, the Court issued a Docket Control Order setting a claim construction hearing on September 25, 2026 and a trial date of March 15, 2027. On September 11, 2025, SEA and SSI filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On September 11, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims in the First Amended Complaint. On September 15, 2025, Avnet filed motions to dismiss both First Amended Complaints. On October 9, 2025, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet asserting infringement of the ’087 and ’731 Patents. On October 10, 2025, Micron moved to stay pending resolution of the venue dispute. On November 24, 2025, SEA and SSI filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On November 24, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims in the Second Amended Complaint. On November 24, 2025, Avnet filed a motion to partially dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2026, Samsung filed a motion to stay this case pending the ITC investigation. On January 28, 2026, Avnet filed a motion to sever and stay. On February 27, 2026, Netlist filed a Third Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet. On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Micron’s motion to dismiss and transferred the member case against Micron to the DDE. On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to stay the case as to Samsung and Avnet pending ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472.

On May 20, 2025, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00626) seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s ’087 Patent. On June 11, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to dismiss or transfer this declaratory judgement action to the EDTX based upon its first-filed EDTX action asserting the ’087 Patent. On July 29, 2025, Samsung filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe the ’087 and ’731 Patents as well as U.S. Patent 12,373,366 (the “’366 Patent”).

On July 28, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung and Avnet in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00748) for infringement of the ’366 Patent, seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Micron and Avnet asserting the ’366 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749). On November 19, 2025, SSI and SEA moved to dismiss for improper venue. On November 19, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain of Netlist’s infringement claims. On December 10, 2025, the Court issued a Docket Control Order setting a claim construction hearing on February 18, 2027 and a trial date of August 16, 2027. On January 4, 2026, Netlist filed a First Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet, and a First Amended Complaint against Micron and Avnet. On January 26, 2026, Micron filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2026, Samsung filed a motion to stay this case pending the ITC investigation. On

January 28, 2026, Avnet filed a motion to sever and stay. On March 2, 2026, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet.

On September 30, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) for patent infringement against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro Computer, Inc. (“Super Micro”) (collectively, “Respondents”). The complaint alleges infringement of six Netlist patents (the ’366, ’731, ’608, ’523, ’035, and ’087 Patents) by one or more of Samsung’s Double Data Rate 5^th Gen. (“DDR5”) Dual Inline Memory Module (“DIMM”) or High Bandwidth Memory (“HBM”) products, Google and Super Micro products containing the same, and components thereof. Netlist seeks a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order from the ITC to stop Respondents’ infringing acts with respect to these infringing products. On December 29, 2025, the ITC instituted an investigation into the Respondents’ alleged infringing acts (Investigation No. 337-TA-1472).

On November 11, 2025, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-01371) seeking a declaration that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s ’035 Patent.

On December 31, 2025, Samsung filed its counterclaims in the ITC investigation, asserting counterclaims for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, and unfair competition by Netlist, and sought a declaratory judgment of unenforceability of an exclusion order. Pursuant to ITC procedure, the counterclaims were immediately removed to the DDE and docketed as Case No. 1:25-cv-01589.

Micron Litigation

On April 28, 2021, Netlist filed complaints against Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00430 and 6:21-cv-00431), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,833; 9,824,035; 10,268,608; and 10,489,314 (respectively, the “’833, ’035, ’608, and ’314 Patents”), seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. On February 14, 2022, the Court granted Micron’s motion to transfer venue for convenience to another court within WDTX, and the transferred cases were assigned new case nos. 1:22-cv-00134 and 1:22-cv-00136. On May 11, 2022, the Court granted motions to stay the two cases pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the ’833, ’035, ’608, and ’314 Patents.

On June 10, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00203), for infringement of the ’506, ’339, ’918, ’054, ’060 and ’160 Patents, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On May 19, 2023, Micron filed a motion to stay this case pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the six asserted patents. On October 22, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a claim construction order, which the Court adopted on January 17, 2024. On January 3, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a recommendation to deny Micron’s motion to stay this case, which the Court adopted on January 31, 2024. On February 10, 2024, the Court vacated its prior order, staying this case pending the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the six asserted patents.

On August 1, 2022, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00294), for infringement of the ’912 Patent. Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of the ’417 and ’215 Patents. On May 20, 2024, this case proceeded to a jury trial on the ’912 and ’417 Patents. On May 23, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung willfully infringed both patents and awarded $445 million in damages to Netlist. The collectability of the damages award may be affected by the outcomes of pending appeals of final written decisions in the respective Inter Partes Reviews of the two patents (see below). On July 11, 2024, the Court entered final judgment. On August 7, 2024, Micron filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. On June 11, 2025, the Court denied Micron’s motions for judgment as a matter of law on willfulness, on non-infringement, and on damages as well

as Micron’s motion for a new trial. On July 9, 2025, Micron filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), Case No. 2025-1936. The appeal is pending.

On December 11, 2023, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County (“Idaho State Court”) (Case No. CV01-23-19920), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’833 Patent in WDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and Micron moved to remand the case to the Idaho State Court. On August 16, 2024, the District of Idaho remanded this case to the Idaho State Court. On August 20, 2024, Netlist appealed the remand to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2281, and moved the District of Idaho to stay the remand. On September 17, 2024, Micron moved to dismiss or transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the CAFC denied on December 19, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the Idaho State Court case for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Idaho State Court denied on December 5, 2024. On June 12, 2025, the CAFC denied Netlist’s motion to stay the remand pending the appeal; the appeal remains pending. On December 8, 2025, the Idaho State Court set a trial date for December 7, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the Court appointed a discovery master to address the pending discovery disputes between the parties.

On December 23, 2023, Netlist filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Micron in EDTX (Case No. 2:23-cv-00628), seeking a declaration that Netlist had not asserted patent infringement in bad faith against Micron in the prior EDTX patent infringement cases. On January 19, 2024, Micron moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 7, 2024, Netlist filed a First Amended Complaint. On July 19, 2024, the Court denied Micron’s motion to dismiss as moot. On December 5, 2024, Netlist moved for a protective order to preclude Micron from seeking discovery into Netlist’s subjective intent in filing the prior EDTX patent infringement cases. On December 13, 2024, Micron moved to stay this case on abstention grounds. On March 27, 2025, the Court stayed this case pending the conclusion of the CAFC appeals of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) decisions on the Netlist patents asserted against Micron in the prior EDTX patent infringement cases.

On January 16, 2024, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in Idaho State Court (Case No. CV01-24-01032), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’918 and ’054 Patents in the EDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and Micron moved to remand the case to the Idaho State Court. On August 13, 2024, the District of Idaho remanded this case to the Idaho State Court. On August 20, 2024, Netlist appealed the remand to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2282, and moved the District of Idaho to stay the remand. On September 10, 2024, the appeal was consolidated with the above-related appeal (Case No. 2024-2281). On September 17, 2024, Netlist moved to dismiss the Idaho State Court case for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Idaho State Court denied on December 20, 2024. On June 27, 2025, the Idaho State Court granted Netlist’s motion to stay this case until the CAFC issues its opinion in the appeal of the IPR decisions involving the two patents.

On May 19, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00558) for infringement of ’087 Patent. On June 17, 2025, Micron moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. On June 27, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Samsung asserting the ’087 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00557). On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Micron’s motion to dismiss (in the lead case) and transferred this case Micron to the DDE, which was assigned DDE case no. 1:26-cv-00246 on March 9, 2026.

On May 20, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00629) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’087 Patent. On June 11, 2025, Netlist filed a motion to dismiss or transfer this declaratory judgement action to the EDTX based upon its first-filed EDTX action asserting the ’087 Patent.

On June 2, 2025, Micron filed a complaint against Netlist in Idaho State Court (Case No. CV01-25-09858), alleging that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making a bad faith assertion of infringement of the ’060, ’160, ’506, ’339, ’912, and ’417 Patents in the EDTX, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to Code §§ 48-1706(b) and (d), and costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code § 48-1706(c). On June 24, 2025, Netlist removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. On July 1, 2025, Netlist moved to dismiss or to transfer the case to the EDTX. On July 17, 2025, Micron filed a motion to remand the case to the Idaho State Court.

On July 10, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00863) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’731 Patent.

On July 28, 2025, Netlist filed a complaint against Micron and Avnet in the EDTX (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749) for infringement of the ’366 Patent, seeking damages from the infringement by the defendants, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2025, the Court consolidated this case with the case against Samsung and Avnet asserting the ’366 Patent (Case No. 2:25-cv-00748).

On July 29, 2025, Micron filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Case No. 1:25-cv-00942) seeking a declaration that Micron does not infringe Netlist’s ’366 Patent.

Google Litigation

On December 4, 2009, Netlist filed a complaint against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case no. 3:09-cv-05718), for infringement of the ’912 Patent, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a preliminary and permanent injunction. On October 17, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated order to stay this case until the resolution of the patent infringement suit against Samsung filed on August 1, 2022 in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), including any appeal thereof.

Challenges to Netlist Patents at the USPTO and the PTAB

On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’218 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00062). On May 8, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.

On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’523 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00063). On May 3, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On July 3, 2023, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2023-2133). The CAFC heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision.

On October 15, 2021, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’595 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00064). On May 9, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.

On February 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00615). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent, IPR2023-00203. On April 17, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent unpatentable. On September 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2304). The appeal is pending.

On March 2, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00639). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00204). On October 18, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims

unpatentable. On April 11, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1707). On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending.

On March 22, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’506 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00711). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’506 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00205). On October 17, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On February 21, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-1521. The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 5, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision.

On March 30, 2022, Micron filed two Petitions for IPR of the ’314 Patent (Case Nos. IPR2022-00744 and IPR2022-00745). On October 30, 2023, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On December 29, 2023, Micron filed notices of appeal to the CAFC (Case Nos. 2024-1312 and 2024-1313). The appeals were consolidated on January 16, 2024. The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 1, 2025. On February 20, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions.

On May 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00996). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00406. On December 6, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1859). On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set to take place on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending.

On May 17, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00999). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00405). On December 5, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1863). On June 3, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. 2024-1859).

On August 26, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01427). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00883. On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2240. On January 21, 2026, the CAFC notified the parties that oral argument is set on March 6, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. The appeal is pending.

On August 26, 2022, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01428). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00882). On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2241). On September 6, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. 2024-2240).

On January 10, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00455. On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. IPR 2023-01142). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1286). The appeal is pending.

On January 10, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00454). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-01141). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1296). On January 15,

2025, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. 2025-1286).

On April 27, 2023, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’608 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00847). On January 10, 2024, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’608 Patent (Case No. IPR2024-00370). On July 23, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR sought by Micron. On December 10, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the IPR brought by SECL finding no challenged claims unpatentable. On January 13, 2025, SECL filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1378). The CAFC heard oral arguments on December 5, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision.

On October 18, 2024, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’024 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00001). On February 20, 2025, Netlist filed its preliminary response to the Petition. On May 15, 2025, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On May 29, 2025, Netlist requested director review of the institution decision, which was denied on July 17, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Netlist filed a statutory disclaimer and a request for adverse judgment. On September 8, 2025, the PTAB granted Netlist’s request for adverse judgment.

On October 24, 2024, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’319 Patent (Case No. IPR2025-00002). On February 21, 2025, Netlist filed its preliminary response to the Petition. On May 15, 2025, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On May 29, 2025, Netlist requested director review of the institution decision, which was denied on July 17, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Netlist filed a statutory disclaimer and a request for adverse judgment. On September 8, 2025, the PTAB granted Netlist’s request for adverse judgment.

On August 14, 2025, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’608 Patent (Application No. 90/015,449). On October 17, 2025, Netlist filed a petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On November 5, 2025, the unidentified party opposed. On November 7, 2025, the request for reexamination was granted by the examiner. On January 6, 2026, Netlist filed a renewed petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On January 15, 2026, the unidentified party opposed.

On August 25, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ’087 Patent (Case No. PGR2025-00071) and a Petition for IPR of the ’087 Patent (IPR2025-01402). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR but granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the PGR institution decision.

On August 29, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’731 Patent (IPR2025-01431). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the institution decision.

On October 27, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for IPR of the ’035 Patent (IPR2026-00017). On February 24, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR.

On November 7, 2025, SECL filed a Petition for PGR of the ’366 Patent (Case No. PGR2026-00001) and a Petition for IPR of the ’366 Patent (IPR2026-00018).

German Proceedings

On March 31, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Micron in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP 2,454,735 (“EP735”) and EP 3,404,660 (“EP660”). On September 1, 2022, Micron initiated nullity proceedings on the two patents in the German Federal Patent Court. On March 27, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court rescheduled the infringement hearing until April 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal.

On June 3, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Samsung in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On September 25, 2023, the Dusseldorf

Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal.

On July 26, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Google Germany GmbH, Redtec Computing GmbH, and Google LLC in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal.

In the nullity proceeding on EP735, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP735 on April 18, 2024. Netlist filed an appeal on May 13, 2024. An oral hearing at the Federal Court of Justice is set for May 21, 2026. In the nullity proceeding on EP660, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP660 on February 18, 2025. Netlist filed an appeal on March 12, 2025.

Other Contingent Obligations

In the ordinary course of our business, we have made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These may include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to our customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of our products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on our negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; (vi) severance and other related obligations; and (vii) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.